This version includes a n err ata dated 19Apr00 - e

UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 99-1919

D EE ANNA M. K EL S EY , A PP EL L ANT ,

V

.

T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE

.

Be fore KRAMER, FARL EY, and H OL DAWAY, J ud ge s.

O R D E R

T h e p r o s e a

p p e l l an t , D e e A n n a M

. K e l s e y, i s t h e s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e o f

v e t e r anK e i t h J

. K e l s e y, who serve d in the milit ary from January

1960 to J anuar

y 1973. On November 1, 1999, the appe llant filed with the Court a Notice of Appe al (NO A) " for [her] late husband," stating that Mr. Kelse y died on Aug ust 20, 1999, one week after the Boa rd of Veter ans' Appea ls (B oard) issued its Aug ust 13, 1999, decision deny

ing Mr . Kelsey ' s claims, and conte sting that de cision with respec t to the denial of cla ims for Ag ent Ora ng e exposure, d i ges t i v e disorder with hiatal hernia

and hepatitis , and respiratory

disorder. O n Fe bruar

y 4, 2000, prior to the filing of the re cord on a ppeal, the Sec reta

ry filed a motion to dismis s the appe al for la ck of jurisdiction, citi ng as authority the Court' s opinion in Swa ns on v . W

est , 13 Vet.App. 197 (1999). The Court ha s jurisdiction to deter mine its jurisdi ction over this appe al. Se e Sm ith v . B ro wn , 10 Ve t.A pp

. 33 0
, 33 2 (1 99 7)

. Th e Court ha s n ot p re vio us ly addre ssed a situation wher e a ve tera n dies subsequent to a B o ar d decision, but prior to filing an NOA. F or the re ason set for th below, we w ill dis miss thi s appea l for lac k of jurisdiction.

I n Sm ith , we he ld that when a ve tera n dies while his or h er ap p ea l i s pending befor e the B oa rd , th e B oa

rd la c ks jur isd ic tio n to iss ue a de c isi on on the me ri ts a ft e r t

he de a th, a

su bs e qu e ntl y issued Boa

rd dec ision is no t a fi n al d ecision subject to appe al, and the Court a ccor dingly lacks j urisdiction over a

n appea l from that dec ision that is fil ed by the surviving spouse. S e e Sm ith
, 10 Vet .App. at 33 4; se e als o 3 8 U

. S. C. § 7 2 6 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( Co u rt ma y r e v ie w " a f

in a l d e c is io n o f

the B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls" ); An gli n v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 361, 363 (1998) ( Court has jurisdiction only over f inal Boa rd dec isions), a

ff 'd , 203 F.3d 1343 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000). We have also dismis sed for lack of jurisdiction an appea l wher e a party attempted to substitut e for a veteran who died during the pendenc y of his or her appea l to this Court. Se e Ze v alk ink v . B ro wn , 102 F.3d 1230, 1243- 44 (F ed. Cir. 1996), cert. de nied
, 521 U.S. 1103 (1997) (discussing with approva l this C ourt' s unpublished

or de r dis mis sin g e arl ie r ap pe a l on bas is that sur viv ing sp ou se la c ks sta

nd ingbe c a

us e no t " a dv e rs e ly aff ecte d" by underlying B oard de cision within meaning of 38 U.S .C. § 7266(a)) ; see also 38 U. S.C. § 5 11 2( b) (1 ) ( pa

y me nt o n v e te ra

ns ' dis a bil ity c omp e ns a tio n c la ims te rm inate s o n la st d ay of mon th2

befor e death); Lan dic ho v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 42, 54 (1 99 4) (w he re ve te ra n a pp e lla nts die d w hil e appea ls pending befor e Court, substituti on by surviving spouse s claiming entitlement t o acc rued be ne fi ts und e r 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 21 (a ) no t pe rm iss ibl e ; a pp e a ls b e c a me moo t and

Court mus t di smi ss and vac ate unde rly ing B oard de cision). Moreove r, in Swa ns on , s up ra , wher e a vetera n died one da

y be fo re the Court

issue d it s d e c isi on

on his a pp e a l, s ub se qu e nt t o w hic h ju dg me nt a nd mand a te issue d
, t h e C ourt rec alled its judgme nt and mandate and dismissed the appe al, holding that the surviving spouse could not be substitut ed as a n appellant, a

nd stating that "the c ase w as moot [when th e deci si on was is su ed]
, alt ho ugh th e Co urt was no t th en aware of it ." See Swanson , 13 Vet.App. at 199 (dismissal ensure d that Boa rd decision and underly ing reg ional office decision would have

n o p re cl u s i v e e ff

ec ti nad j u d i ca t i o n o f an y

s u b s eq u en tac cr

u ed -b en ef

i t s cl ai m d er i v edfr o m v et er an 's entitlement).

Be cause the time frame in this case f alls betwee n the time frames in Sm ith , s up ra , and Zevalkink, Landicho, and Swa ns on , a ll s up ra , "[t]he inevitable conclusion" is that there is no discerna ble basis for a

differ ent outcome he re. Swanson , 13 Vet.App. at 199

. There fore , the veter an ' s s u r

v iv in gs p o u s e , th e a

p p e ll an t h e r e , la c k s s ta

n d in g to p ur s u e , an d

th e Co u rt la cks jurisdiction over, an a

ppeal of the B oard' s denial of he r late husba nd' s VA bene fi ts claims. Cf. Ma rlo w v. W

est , 12 Vet.App. 548, 550 ( 1999) (discussing unpublished dismis sal for la ck of jurisdiction of ear lier appe al on veter an' s retroa ctive bene fits claim broug ht after death of veter an by surviving child). We note, however, that the NOA filed by the appellant and conta ining notice of he r h us ba nd ' s d e a th c on sti tut e s an in fo rm a l, d e ri vativ e , c la im f or ac cru e d b e ne fi ts, wh ic h s he is entitled to have a djudicated. See Landicho , 7 Vet.App. at 50 (notice of death filed with Court and delivere d to Secre tary

in Court's routine ple ading proce ss constituted informal claim by surviving spouse for a ccr

ued bene fits); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.151(a) , 3.155(a) (1999).

Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he a bo ve , it is

ORDERED that the August 13, 1999, decision of the B oard is VACATE D. I t is further

ORDERED that this appea l is DI SMI SSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DA TE D: Ap ri l 14 , 2 00 0 PER CU RI AM

.